So are you just against it because they are breaking the law? That's really what is behind it? Is it because they are a "drain" on society? If so, we have discussed potential ways to fix that. If those ways aren't viable to you, why not?

Here's what is behind my thinking. My baseline thinking is that we are at the core a nation of immigrants. But throughout our history, we have had various groups come out strongly against immigration, or against minorities for whatever reason. People keep trying to draw the line to basically say "alright, I know we were founded as a nation of immigrants, but you know what? We're good now." Almost as if we are saying, we need to keep what we have for the white people now, we don't need anymore.

Why? Why do we turn away people who believe that America is the greatest country in the world? Why do we turn away people who continue even now to try to escape oppressive, violent circumstances. Why is it that NOW we draw the line?

It seems (and I emphasize SEEMS) to me that the answer is a little racist, because those people tend to be non-white, and those that are very against it tend to be white. Many generalize that people want to come here and steal and freeload. Maybe that is the case for some, but I would argue not for the vast majority.

I say that it is that immigration that made us the greatest country in the world, and the more we encourage it, the greater we become. Yeah, it's not without its financial struggles, and I'm not denying that there are some. But there are ways around that. Some people seem to absolutely refuse that there are potential solutions that are not "keep 'em out".

Let's let 'em in. And maybe change our thinking a little. Letting 'em in VERY MUCH threatens the existing power structure, so there is a big incentive to keeping that dividing line and keeping people afraid of "them". It's old, tired thinking. It should stop.

You are correct FICA comes put no matter what.


This employer isnt breaking a law there, I guarantee that. I use one of the largest payroll processor in the country to make sure all that's covered.


No he isnt contributing that much. I as the employer pay 7.65% regardless of who I hire and he pays 7.65%. So if he is making $60k he is contributing $4,590. But that's a fun manipulation to make it look like a net gain.

And the other thing is, it was framed in just that way to prevent the sort of "grandfather clause" chicanery that the South later engaged in over the right to vote.

Not that the states would have had that right, but in the event a Congress sympathetic to Southern aims repealed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (which had comparable language establishing birthright citizenship), the Constitution would ensure that freed blacks would retain citizenship by virtue of having been born on American soil.

There was some debate about the language used granting birthright citizenship to "undesirable" immigrant groups, but the broader language is what was passed. The existence of the debate and the ultimate language codified is going to make it difficult for the Administration to argue convincingly that the Fourteenth was only intended to apply to freed blacks.

Cynically, though, I have a feeling that McConnell's fuckery with Merrick Garland is going to mean that the plain text interpretation of the Fourteenth is only going to survive if John "The Voting Rights Act has done such a great job of preventing racially-based vote suppression in the last 50 years that it isn't necessary for it to continue to prevent racially-based vote suppression any longer" Roberts sides with the liberal minority in ruling against the Administration when the lawsuit inevitably reaches SCOTUS.

I have no confidence in Thomas, but I'm not sure I'd believe even Alito would go this far, and certainly not Gorsuch or Roberts.

Man I would have to type a book, and honestly this is a better conversation over a beer than a long type fest. I dont do my best work with the written word.


But let me say it this way. The single human being I respect more than any in this world besides my 2 kids is my maternal grandmother. She passed away this past May and I still miss her daily. All that said her parent emigrated to the US from Sicily. She was literally born on the boat and processed through Ellis Island and grew up in Brooklyn. So I am very very much sympathetic to the immigrant plight and value the diversity.



What makes it a tad different, she would tell stories - they were proud to be American. They came here for a better life. Her dad worked on the docks and later opened a small sandwich shop and deli. He was proud of his Sicilian/Italian heritage but he was more proud of his American citizenship. He stressed to his kids (Grandma was the baby of 5) the importance of assimilation and adapting. The oldest boy was 13 when they arrived and they would tell me about this when I was little 40 years later.


I have endless open arms for those people, for that mentality today.


But when people dont want to assimilate. When they openly and brazenly fly the flag of the nation they fled, while living in this country, that to me is a direct and unassailable attack on the American way. I dont know how else to say it. I dont know how better to express it. I dont care if they are black skinned Kenyans, brown skinned mexicans or pasty white swedes

..ts not a racist thing. Its about an embrace of the American way of life and a desire to be an American as opposed to a desire to be a XYZ-ican and live here and reap the benefits this country affords.


Final point...and I have to get some work done Ive spent more time here today than in the past 2 years combined...People that come here with nothing. With no money, with limited clothes, with no plans. How do they intend to survive? Their very plan is dependent upon freeloading. Unless they have friends/family/contacts who are going to assist them. To give them a place to stay. I dont think we have an obligation to provide shelter/food/clothes to folks who want a batter life.

I live in the northeast and I have multiple homes in my neighborhood that fly the Irish or Italian flag. They even celebrate their own holidays and saints.

Every reputable economist includes the employer share in employee costs.

Yeah, coming from New Jersey, I found that to be a very strange comment. I mean you'd have to argue that something like half of certain towns are attacking the American way on St. Patrick's Day or Italian festivals.

Also, there are other countries that have this policy, Trump is lying about it only being the US.

But hey, he’s allowed one mistake, right? :rolleyes:

So after Trump and Republicans pretty much ignore any attempts to discredit them with sexual harassment, some conservatives tried to get woman to come forward with allegations against Mueller. Only problem is that they offered them money to do so and to make them up...which got them in trouble with the FBI:


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/30/muel...about-him.html


And I'm still reading the details, but it seems one of Trump's biggest supporters on Twitter might have been behind it. And maybe turned in by some of the biggest Anti-Trump tweeters out there.


Edit: More on this including the Trump supporter Jacob Wohl here:


https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside...eller?ref=home

Or he's making it up as he goes along, based on what snippet he picked up from whoever happens to utter in in one of his more receptive periods. Might be more realistic based on his track record in every other topic/area.

The 7.65% you put in is an employee cost. It's part of their overall compensation.

No manipulation, it's basic economics.

And if you somehow didn't view it that way, it's still $9,540 going to the federal government that someone cannot collect on later. Much more than the income taxes they would have to pay. There's no way to argue that the government isn't ahead on this one (and also why governments aren't in a huge rush to fix this).

Meanwhile: The Treasury is going to issue $1.338 trillion in new debt this year--that's trillion with a T--more than double the amount in 2017. https://t.co/vWrYzSM6K0 via @WSJ

— Gerald F Seib (@GeraldFSeib) October 30, 2018

I had heard the name before. Seems like a con artist who latched on to the Trump wave. There's some weird stuff out there on fraud and stuff.

Family gives off a weird "balloon boy" vibe where they are desperate for fame.

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

Anyone following the Mueller/Jacob Wohl sexual assault stuff? F'ng comedic gold 100%. Been laughing my ass off for the past hour. Twitter roastings are the few good things remaining about the Interwebs.


Jane Mayer on Twitter: "Odd. Jacob Wohl says he doesn't know nuttin' about Surefire Intelligence, the firm tied to the bizarre Mueller allegations. Take a look at the photos below of Mathhew Cohen, head of 'Surefire,' and of Jacob Wohl.… https://t.co/5RlRHXQsTf"


Aric Toler on Twitter: "Sure looks like this weird "private intel agency" is the one that made the dodgy Mueller accusation. They claim to have been founded by ex-Mossad lol… https://t.co/xGswItvXia"

This is a nice compilation of the pile of BS that Wohl was trying to sell.

bellingcat - The Unintelligent Design of SureFire Intelligence - bellingcat

It didn't mention that the number for the company went to Wohl's mom's cell phone.

The threshold of becoming a political celebrity has gotten really low.

Nope not following it all (points up five posts or so) :D

Hey.....don't you worry, because those Baby Boomers are doing ALRIGHT!

yeah like father like son I guess. Hope he gets arrested for this latest stunt.

How did I miss that Gary Johnson is running for Senate in New Mexico as a libertarian? What is the better spin that a Libertarian might get 25% or more of a US Senate vote or that the Libertarian candidate for president can only get 25% of a small states vote for Senate? I choose the former. :)

I don't mean just build a wall and see how it goes. With building a wall, an assumption is that the wall will be staffed & monitored properly (whatever that means and including immigration reform).


Using that assumption ...

The border with Mexico is about 1,954 miles. Right now there are approx 700 miles that are "walled/fenced/barb wired" (I've seen different nos. but this gives you the general %).

I don't see how you believe that a wall across all 1,954 miles that is "staffed & monitored" would not "stop anything".

Now if you want to debate that it won't work because the wall will never be built completely, staffing and monitoring won't be fully funded, the cost does not justify the benefits etc. those are different angles but to just say the wall won't "stop anything" isn't correct in my mind.

Earlier arguments from a while ago said no wall has ever worked. I present you the wall that Israel built, it's worked pretty well. (... and we all know it stopped the zombies pretty well until security broke down). Great Wall of China worked pretty well. There are likely other examples. Will it work forever? Probably not but better than 1,200+ miles of open space.


Mexico–United States border - Wikipedia

FWIW, see my #13773 response to Lathum.

Wall + immigration reform would.

As a note for the future, whenever I say Wall I will try to prefix it with "properly staffed & monitored wall" and suffix it with "+ immigration reform". If I forget, please just make the assumption.

Just so I make sure I understand ... so you would allow travel, living, working with no restrictions at all between the US and south of the border?

Not sure about what you are referring to but you are not going to get any disagreement from me about his BS'ing all the time.

Yup, don't disagree that is a real possibility.

Again, there's a majority for something like the Bush immigration reform package right now, but the far right won't let it be brought up because they don't want reform, they want reduced immigration(illegal and legal).

I have zero confidence that either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh would smack this down. Like, none. They were nominated by a President who prizes personal loyalty over the rule of law - like, literally, the dude thinks the job of the Attorney General is first and foremost to protect the President. You and I both know he picked those two to be cover for his Administration first, and Supreme Court justices second. Will they assert an independent judiciary if this executive order comes before them? Maybe. Am I confident? Not even a little.

Thomas and Alito aren't Trump picks, but I do expect them to toe the line on Republican orthodoxy.

I would expect all four liberal justices to say "aw HELL naw."

So I'd expect a 5-4 decision one way or the other that rests on whether Roberts sides overtly with the liberals, overtly with the conservatives, or with the liberals while assigning himself the majority opinion and using it in a way that both smacks down the Administration and also drags case law to the right.

Yes

Your last point first, I would assume they intend to get jobs. Even crappy "illegal" jobs. Average Mexican salary is about $9000 a year. You are easily doing much better than that by somehow getting a minimum wage job. Many of these people are literally in search of the American Dream or the American way of life. So those people are "owed nothing"? Sure, I guess. I think the panic position is always that there will end up being millions upon millions. The reality is much less. Many people don't even have a way to get out of their current situation, so this flood of immigrants just isn't going to happen.

I would ask you this: What is your stance on those that fly the Confederate flag? There are a fuck of a lot more of them in South Carolina than those that I have ever seen flying a different nation's flag around. That's pretty much the same thing you're talking about. The Confederacy doesn't exist anymore, and more than any other nation except England and Russia in world history, was a direct enemy of the United States. But let's just fly that around and it's fine because it's some rednecks celebrating their "heritage"?

I vote we get rid of that flag long before we make people who came here from Mexico quit flying the Mexican flag. I always viewed it like people who are really proud of their sports team. Yeah, you may like the Cowboys and I may like the Bengals, but at the end of the day we're both NFL fans and we don't hate each other for it.

I get that. And I support that whole heartedly, I am more than fine with that. Im not even extrapolating to the millions.

But look more granular. The very day they show up. When they dont have a job. When even if they find a job day 1 they are at least 1 week if not 2 or 3 from getting their first paycheck. How do they eat, sleep, survive until they get "situated".



Going back to my great grandparents. To hear my grandmother, aunts and uncles (well mostky the uncles since they were old enough to remember) The family talked about moving and saved for 5 years. They told stories of not getting winter shoes for 2 years because they had to save every dime. They came with a plan to survive. Im not sure that is the casee with the "caravan" folks. If it is, good, But when I hear "all they own on their backs"...I do wonder how they will eat if not for a handout or theft. Again f they ave a network here to privately support them. All good. Just dont come here expecting the .gov to support them





I oppose both. The flag of another Nation has no business being flown. I have 2 flag poles on opposite sides of my porch. The united States Flag and the State Flag of SC fly. No others.


Now in my game room/bar. I have a Bonnie Blue, A Gadsden Flag and a Democratic Republic of Congo Flag...as well as a Clemson 2016 National Champs Flag. I see no issue with decorating using these symbols inside ones home. Flying them outside, again to me, is a bit of a declaration.


Frankly if you want to fly a Mexican flag on Cinco de Mayo (thats tongue in cheek) or an Irish flag on St Pattys Day..I have less of an issue with that. Celebrating a Holiday, decorating around a day...that's difference than pledging allegiance to the symbol of another country.


I don't want to go too far to extremes here, but I personally (and again I don't expect everyone or really anyone to share my beliefs - Im just expressing my beliefs) find flying of a rival nations flag to be borderline an act of aggression act of declaration or war. I take it, personally again, that serious.


I consider myself blessed and fortunate to have been born here. For those reasons I can understand others wanting to come here. If they are blessed and fortunate to make it here they should then take pride in being here. That's my flag issue.


Now to be more confusing. I think it is 100% their right as a US Citizen, if they are in fact a US Citizen, to fly whatever flag they want under Freedom of Speech protection. however if they are an illegal here and flying the flag of a rival nation - I am not sure how to consider them anything but an invading force.

hahaha - my bad. Got such a kick out of this that I forgot where I saw it. It still makes me laugh.

Me too, and I couldn't resist tweaking you on it :)

I'm so glad the President was treated so warmly and with respect and never saw the protests-and not one word of respect for those who died.

1. 
   Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 49m49 minutes ago
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Melania and I were treated very nicely yesterday in Pittsburgh. The Office of the President was shown great respect on a very sad & solemn day. We were treated so warmly. Small protest was not seen by us, staged far away. The Fake News stories were just the opposite-Disgraceful!

IMO, continually pointing inconsequential things like this out is basically anti-Trump people shooting themselves in the foot. We all know he's a POS and everything is about him. There's no need to keep adding fuel to the fire for his supporters that he is treated unfairly with this kind of nitpicking. There are plenty of bigger, more important issues to slam him on.

I don't understand this at all. If you're a citizen of this country you can fly another country's flag, but if you're a citizen of another country you can only fly the American flag?

Hey Ksyrup, this was in response to my post about Trump's tweet about Pittsburgh? I think we can agree to disagree about how inconsequential it was. He comes to Pittsburgh to honor the dead and their families and then the tweet is all about him and his enemies in the "fake media" and people showing him respect. I was more posting it for the Democrats/Liberals on this board than I was trying to change their minds of/anger Trump voters/supporters. People need to be kept reminded he's a POS at least until the midterms are over.



I know that when the 2016 election was over, I had to ask my family who were Trump voters to stop posting Trump propaganda on Facebook because they were just rubbing it in at that point. So I will take my cue from that, and tone down on these kinda posts unless something major happens.

Again I'm expressing my feelings. You are free to disagree.


If you are a citizen of this country you have rights, protected by our Constitution. I dont think you SHOULD fly another country's flag in this Country but I accept that you have the right to.


If you are not a citizen then you are not afforded those same guarantees. Now I think not only shold you not fly another fag I think you should not have the right.


An analogy. An American citizen burning the flag is entitled to that as an expression of free speech. A non citizen burning the flag is a declaration of conflict. In my opinion both dont deserve another breath of oxygen . But 1 has a legally established right to his behavior and is afforded my tolerance

the other does not and is not.

Non-citizens are absolutely afforded 1st Amendment rights in this country.

To be honest, I personaly think these citizen, non-citizen dichotomies on rights are abhorrent. While I agree that the particular rights are government given, I ascribe to a higher level of rights that, to me, trump (no pun intended) those government given rights. My faith demands that non-citizens and citizens be treated equally. Once again, I am speaking personally, just as you (CU) are. I think denying rights to speak on the basis of citizenship is utterly unchristian, and that's where my primary loyalties lie.

Better to say that the 1st Amendment is a limit on what Congress can do, not a grant of what citizens or non-citizens can do. Congress cannot make a law "...abridging the freedom of speech...". It doesn't condition that for citizenship.

It's not just that I disagree, I honestly don't understand how this would work. Are you talking about rounding up thousands of foreigners during the Olympics if they were held in the U.S.? What about students with flags in their dorm rooms?

I always find patriotism tests fascinating.

Building on my last post, I sometimes enjoy telling people (God forgive me!) that because I am a Christian and believe that all are children of God, I can't possibly believe patriotism is compatible with the Christian faith or the teachings of Jesus Christ. I get some interesting looks back in that conversation.

TBH the basis of treating everyone equally, treating everyone as you would hope to be treated yourself, is about as good a life guide as I can think of.

It cuts through everything: politics, religion, nationality, gender, race, physical ability.

I'm mostly here, but I do think it's possible to be a patriot, in that I'm proud of things the US has done. For example, I'm proud that the country liberated and rebuilt Europe. I'm proud that we sent a ton of money to Africa to fight AIDS. I'm proud that we have traditionally given more to charity than other nations.

I think that pride is patriotism, and it doesn't rely on nationalistic, USA #1, thinking.

Actually I covered my feelings on that earlier. There is a difference between decorating inside one's home or waving a flag at a competition as opposed to staking a flag over your house. To me that flag symbolizes your intent to claim that property for that entity. Inside a home as a decoration has a entirely different intent.




I understand that POV and share it to a point.
Where we diverge, is I feel like the displaying of the alternate country flag on our soil is a direct implication that your homeland is superior to your current locale.


I'm not suggesting that because they choose to fly that flag they deserve food and water. Or deserve any restrictions over others who dont fly a particular banner. I didnt suggest they deserve to die or be treated any certain way.


I just think the act itself is inappropriate.


A stretch analogy....Ive been accused of those before right?


If you are a huge Manchester United soccer fan. And you attend a match between Barcelona and Real Madrid...and you carry a MU flag and where their jersey. I guess Im not suggesting you dont have that right. Im just saying that when you make that choice you should expect and accept the consequences of poor treatment. We can all hope everyone would be welcoming and accommodating but history suggests it wont work out for ya.



Thats more the tone I feel with the rival country flag.


Now if your team is playing on the field across the street and you choose to come to this game and wave the flag and wear the jersey. I dont think its a stretch to suggest that you are looking for trouble.

To a point. But while I can see being proud of the actions that people in your country have done, I don't necessarily see how that leads to a general pride of simply where you had the luck to be born. And for all the pride in what people in your country have done, you also have to be willing (IMO) to take on the shame - the shame of slavery, colonialism, etc. And the later seems to be to be minimized or reduced by folks in the name of patriotism.


But no one actually cares about this and you won't suffer adverse consequences :D. Another anology may have been better. I'm an Atlanta United season ticket holder and I've seen loads of European jerseys in the stands. No one even remarks on it.

I asked for clarification re: your/my post #13776 because your "want no immigration control at all" mean drug dealers, gang bangers, terrorists and other bad guys will free access to "travel, live, and work" in the US.

I'm going to assume you really mean we need to keep the bad guys out and therefore some immigration control is needed.

If this is not correct, can you explain your rationale re: allowing bad guys?